Table 2.
Intraobserver agreement metrics, pathologists’ experience and reported technical/case-related impairments
| Pathologist 1 | Pathologist 2 | Pathologist 3 | Pathologist 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pathologist’s experience | Lead Pathologist | Phd student | Phd student | Phd student |
| Po |
160 of 162 (98.76%) |
144 of 162 slides (88.8%) |
142 of 162 slides (87.65%) |
138 of 162 slides (85.1%) |
| Fleiss’s Kappa index |
κ = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94-1) P-value = 0 |
κ = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.92) P-value = 0 |
κ = 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.90) P-value = 0 |
κ = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.89) P-value = 0 |
| Discordancies |
2 of 162 slides SL: none D: (2;1.2%) ER: 1.2% |
18 of 162 slides SL: (5;27.7%) D: (13;72.2%) ER: 7.4% (n=12) |
20 of 162 slides SL: (8;40%) D: (12;60%) ER: 4.9% (n=8) |
24 of 162 slides SL: (4;16.6%) D: (20;83.3%) ER: 8% (n=13) |
| Preferred Diagnosis | CM: 2 |
DM: 8 CM: 10 |
DM: 12 CM: 8 |
DM: 10 CM: 14 |
| DM reported pitfalls* |
LSM (10) Lack of details of inflammatory cells (1) |
Lag screen mirroring (11) |
Lag screen mirroring (7) Higher magnification needed**(1) |
Lag screen mirroring (2) |
Po percentage of agreement, D discordant cases, SL slightly discordant cases, ER error rate of DM (*calculated based on the reference standard diagnosis), DM digital method, CM conventional method. **For dysplasia grading